The problem with FF cameras is that they require large/heavy FF lenses A Leica 25mm f/1.4 M4/3 (2X crop) lens weighs 200 grams and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 weighs 290 grams. Percentage wise the difference between 200 and 290 is very large.

Statistically yes, real life no

You're right, but when we're discussing a hypothetical, "in real life" is no longer relevant The difference between 200gm and 290gm is small in real life because current full frame DSLRs would dwarf the weight of the lens -- the relevant difference is between 1400gm and 1490gm.

However, if one were to consider a mirrorless full frame camera, the body is much lighter -- for example the M9 is 600gm. Then the weight of the lens becomes more of an issue.

Having said that, the M9 proves that it's possible to produce a decent full frame mirrorless camera. Much like APS-C mirrorless cameras, they work well with normal length primes. However, once you start using long teles or f/2.8 zooms, there is little point trying to shave a few ounces off the body and/or make it fit in ones pocket (even if you could put a 300mm f/2.8 in your pocket, it wouldn't exactly afford the type of "discretion" that rangefinder shooters expect.)

Why does living in the present or the future require me to accept and use a lesser product than what I have owned previously?

This is a very good remark. However, this is exactly the answer to your previous post! If Canon makes an entry level FF camera it is mostly certain they'll discontinue 5DII. So they will have replaced a decent FF camera with a lesser one! (and force someone who does not like this to pay the exorbitant amount of 3500 for the 5DIII)

I hope both Canon and Nikon develop and produce more FF bodies period. With more competition and more options, everyone wins! I figure I'm about a year away until I can add a FF body. I'd like to see a FF body between the 7D and 5D2. I don't necessarily agree the 5D2 is an entry level FF body. BTW, what is "entry level" and who decides that?

FFFanboys have a hard time realizing that not everyone wants or needs a FF camera! Size and weight are very important to some Pros. And these Pros have even switched to M43 to get rid of unwanted size/weight.

10+ yeas ago, everyone had full frame cameras.

Excellent point. My brain still works in FF (24 x 36) from the film days. It took me a bit to get the 1.6 conversion in my head.

I don't think many hobbiests will buy FF because they won't spend the cash on FF lenses because they are pricey and struggle with spending $200 for a lens. The hobbiests that do buy the FF glass usually also have 1d and 5d series cameras and don't care how much it cost.

Depends on the definition of hobbyist. Often I see hobbyist and consumer interchanged. I consider myself a hobbyist since I don't make money from photog. IMO, hobbyists are saving their money and are anxious (not struggling) to spend it on that fast L lens. Where consumers are more like the soccer mom who picked up a body/lens kit at Best Buy to shoot the kids and probably doesn't what to spend much more, if any, on gear.

I"m saving up right now for a 35L II then a 5D3 to compliment my 7D and L lens. If I had the funds today, I'd have my 5D3--still would wait for 35L mk II. I have no problem spending my limited money on gear.

There are some M4/3 lenses that have good IQ. Leica's DG SUMMILUX 25mm F1.4 ASPH is one of them. And Canon has built high quality lenses, for 2/3" Broadcast Video cameras, for a long time.

That's the point. A NEX 7 (1.5 crop) is much smaller and lighter than a Canon 60D. And the Sony sensor is 24 Mp, not 18 Mp like the Canon.

But time marches on, and I'm sure that the next generation of Canon APS-C sensors will have more IQ than the present Sony sensors. Manufacturers leap-frogging one another is how high tech works -- everyone gets to be the leader for a few weeks.

The increases in image quality on ASPC already seem to be becoming more limated by lens tech to me though, no video camera is going to need anything close to the resolution were talking about either.

My guess is that as tech progresses where going to start moving back towards the situation with film where by lenses become the overriding factor in IQ again with FF and MF having an obvious advanatge simpley because the imaging area is larger. As tech improves the cost of these larger sensors is likely to carry on decreasing aswell bringing them more into reach of more users. With MF espeically a decrease in manifacturing cost could have a very large effect on price(both sensors and lenses) since its currently a very niche market.

Lenses seem to be going the opposite direction to me with m43 generally more expensive than ASPC DSLR's. I'd guess because its more difficult to extract the required resolution from a smaller imaging area in a smaller lens(isnt that alot of the reason behind Leica's prices?). If you have that increasing the costs of smaller sensors with higher resolution and the much faster march of sensor tech decreasing the price of larger formats then the costs of the two are likely to become closer.

Infact I'd argue that the rise of mirrorless itself is less a case of former DSLR users moving to a smaller sensor/body size and more a case of compact users moving up in sensor/body size as tech/price allows them to do so.

Quote

The problem with FF cameras is that they require large/heavy FF lenses A Leica 25mm f/1.4 M4/3 (2X crop) lens weighs 200 grams and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 weighs 290 grams. Percentage wise the difference between 200 and 290 is very large.

This is also a problem for Canon APS-C cameras because they use FF lenses, except for the EF-S zooms. Even though I'm an APS-C Fanbo, I can see a future need for M4/3 cameras, if you really want to decrease size and weight even more. Me, I'd be happy with a NEX 7 sized CANON CAMERA with 14mm f/1.8, 24mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 primes.

If we were talking a FF/MF mirrorless I'm guessing it would be a good deal larger than the NEX bodies which personally I view as a bit of a gimmick with there extreme size cutting(which seems to be creating problems with UWA lenses aswell).

Personally my opinion has always been that the holiday/amature landscape market is a big part of the reason for FF's recent sucess(the 5D mk2 and now the D800). Thats why IMHO resolution has sold so well since you could argue that amatures wanting to make a 30x20 print of a landscape shot have more use for it than many pro's. Size is I'd guess a big factor for alot of these users, they might not want something really tiny but a 500-600g mirrorless FF body would probabley be very welcome, espeically if it saved a few hundred on the price.

My point was that such users are likely to want to use lenses in the wide/normal range most often which are generally going to balance better with a mirrorless system aswell as potentially offering size savings as we've seen woth mirrorless UWA's.

Quote

The Nikon 2.7x crop mirrorless cameras (J1 & V1) have the Phase Detect Auto Focus sensors built into the chip and are said to focus as fast as Nikon's DSLRs

" ...Very DSLR-like in most aspects, including speed and tracking ability ..." & " ...This is the result of phase detect sensors being built into the imaging sensor, coupled with the high frame rate of the sensor ..." http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/nikon-v1-review.html

Like it or not, "time marches on" into the high-tech future.

Have the V1 and the J1 shown AF performance on the level of the 1DX or the D4? my guess is that such AF performance on mirrorless is still some years off.

In this market the size savings of mirrorless seem much less important to me aswell, why would a sports tog want something the size of a NEX when he still needs to put a massive tele lens on the end of it?

Why does living in the present or the future require me to accept and use a lesser product than what I have owned previously?

This is a very good remark. However, this is exactly the answer to your previous post! If Canon makes an entry level FF camera it is mostly certain they'll discontinue 5DII. So they will have replaced a decent FF camera with a lesser one! (and force someone who does not like this to pay the exorbitant amount of 3500 for the 5DIII)

You're assuming that they won't introduce a new full frame camera that is better than the 5DII (in some way) and lesser than the 5DIII. In some ways, it would be hard for them to introduce a full frame camera that is worse than the 5DII.

It is very easy to produce a camera worse than 5DII.

1. They can use a 600-like body2. They can omit Lens Micro Adjustment3. They can put a worse viewfinder

Even the use of an SD card although of course NOT WORSE by itself may mean that many CF users who have put a lot of money to buy very good CF cards will have to buy again cards...

It is very easy to produce a camera worse than 5DII, 1. They can use a 600-like body, 2. They can omit Lens Micro Adjustment, 3. They can put a worse viewfinder. Even the use of an SD card although of course NOT WORSE by itself may mean that many CF users who have put a lot of money to buy very good CF cards will have to buy again cards...

They wouldn't dare to leave out afma for a ff body because the dof is even thinner than on crop. I think they'll cut back on the usual points you mentioned, too: worse af than 5d3, less processing power = lower fps, less sturdy body. And seeing sd cards on the 5d3, too, I think they'll go for these in the future.

But the main cut from the 5d3 & 5d2 imho will be what Canon marketing usually does: less customization & build in a lot of tiny annoyances that are somewhat workable around by an amateur with time on his hands, but hinder a pro and make him buy the "real thing".

They wouldn't dare to leave out afma for a ff body because the dof is even thinner than on crop. I think they'll cut back on the usual points you mentioned, too: worse af than 5d3, less processing power = lower fps, less sturdy body. And seeing sd cards on the 5d3, too, I think they'll go for these in the future.

Here we go again... Dof is thinner on a crop in absolute terms, it is only because you need to come closer to the subject (to get same framing) that the DoF in FF is thinner... or in other words, in crop you need to back off and the added distance between you and the subject being more, thickens the Dof... or in still other words, keep both FF & Crop the same distance from the subject, crop has thinner Dof.